VHCC cases jeopardised by fee cuts

Topics: The Bar,Government

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (6)
  • Save

Related images

  • Ministry of Justice – Goldberg

Multi-million-pound fraud trials are being put in jeopardy by the Ministry of Justice’s cuts to advocates’ fees, the Gazette has learned.

A £200m conspiracy trial at Southwark Crown Court involving alleged ‘rogue bankers’ and a £100m film financing case listed at Birmingham Crown Court face being derailed because of a lack of counsel. These are in addition to a £4.5m fraud trial disrupted at Southwark, reported by the Gazette last week.

Advertisement

Despite contacting hundreds of barristers, including at the Public Defender Service (PDS) and the Northern Irish and Scottish bars, solicitors have been unable to find advocates willing to accept legal aid briefs in the most serious and complex criminal cases since the MoJ implemented 30% fee cuts in December.

The ministry is seeking to fill the gap by increasing the number of advocates employed by the PDS, which currently employs one QC and seven solicitor-advocates. Two more silks will start this month.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has sought to downgrade some cases from very high cost cases (VHCCs) to graduated fee cases in a bid to secure advocates, but without success. The LAA denies downgrading the cases because of the boycott, claiming the two cases in question no longer meet the VHCC criteria.

If advocates cannot be found, the courts will have to determine whether the prosecutions should be stayed or the cases should proceed with publicly funded defendants unrepresented.

Ed Smyth, an associate at London firm Sonn Macmillan Walker, who represents defendants in two of the cases, said: ‘It’s in nobody’s interests that the trials go ahead with unrepresented defendants.’

Smyth said: ‘It appears to be an entirely false economy for serious criminal allegations to go unprosecuted simply because the powers that be refuse counsel a sensible fee rate.’

Vice-chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Tony Cross QC said: ‘The CBA warned government that barristers would not do VHCCs at the reduced rates. They didn’t believe us. They do now, which is why their officials are scurrying around trying to find lawyers to fill the void.’

Cross said the result will be that trials do not proceed and justice will not be done. He added: ‘It’s ironic that while the MoJ claim their coffers are empty, they start expanding a failed and flawed PDS.’

An MoJ spokeswoman said: ‘In the current economic climate we could not continue to sustain paying advocates at the old rate but believe that, even after the fee changes, advocates continue to be generously remunerated.’

She said the PDS is recruiting a ‘small number’ of advocates as part of continuous expansion, adding: ‘The LAA is confident of recruiting barristers capable of undertaking VHCC cases. Representation in future VHCC cases could be provided by advocates joining the PDS.’

Readers' comments (6)

  • What people don't reaslie is the scale of these 'savings', i.e. the numbers involved, are tiny in relative terms. The entire criminal legal aid cuts aim to save £120million. As an illustration of scale:

    The NHS spends about £120 million every 10 hours,
    The BBC wasted £100m on one failed IT project.
    RBS (82% govt owned) had a bonus pool of £500m this year, £607m last year - despite making a loss in both years.

    And, in the longer term, beefing up the Public Defender Service is also more expensive that NOT making these cuts at all. It is plainly awful arithmetic - no money will be saved. Anyone who understand this should have genuine doubt about what the government's ture motive is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is a full scale onslaught upon legal aid professionals. Nothing less. The Bar has had the guts to make a stand. We solicitors have never given more than a whimper as we have been abused over the last 15 years.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There comes a time when you just can't continue anymore to blindly hack fees or costs.

    Justice that is blind, deaf and mute is no justice at all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And in the mean time the government continue with there cuts. Can't wait for the new wave of duty contracts that should be fun.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And the debt left behind by New Labour, Hard Labour if you ask me, costs £100m a day to service. And that is just the interest. I entirely agree that the coalition's cuts to legal aid are unacceptable, but blame Blair, Brown, Balls, Darling and . Goldsmith. They are the ones who ran up the debt which makes the cuts necessary.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When we are now told that the 85 richest individuals on this planet own as much wealth as 2 billion others, I`m not sure that the entire system does not need overhauling and a new set of moral priorities installed ; a few vapid politicians appearing, messing things up still further then leaving the stage, is a secondary problem .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (6)
  • Save
ManchesterCC265x144
Browse over 3,500 law jobs Get jobs by email

Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition